A recovery in one jurisdiction for a tort committed in another
must be based on the ground of an obligation incurred at the place
of the tort which is not only the ground, but the measure, of the
maximum recovery.
A state cannot legislate so as to affect conduct outside of its
jurisdiction and within territory over which the United States has
exclusive jurisdiction. A state may not determine the conduct
required of a telegraph company in transmitting interstate messages
by determining the consequences of not pursuing such conduct in
another state. The statute of South Carolina making mental anguish
caused by the negligent nondelivery of a telegram a cause of action
is, as applied to telegrams the negligent nondelivery of which
occurred in the District of Columbia, an unconstitutional attempt
to regulate conduct within territory wholly under the jurisdiction
of the United
Page 234 U. S. 543
states; such statute is also unconstitutional, as to messages
sent from that state to be delivered in another state, as an
attempt to regulate interstate commerce.
92 S.C. 554 reversed.
The facts, which involve the constitutionality of a statute of
the South Carolina in regard to negligent nondelivery of telegraph
messages, are stated in the opinion.
Page 234 U. S. 546
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action of tort brought by the party to whom a
telegraphic message was addressed. The message was delivered to the
company in South Carolina, addressed to the plaintiff in
Washington, District of Columbia, and read, "Come at once. Your
sister died this morning." It was forwarded without delay to
Washington, but there, through negligence, as the jury found, was
not delivered. The declaration alleges that the failure caused the
plaintiff to miss attending her sister's funeral in South Carolina,
and subjected the plaintiff to mental anguish, which of itself is
made a cause of action by a statute of South Carolina. Civil Code,
§ 2223. The defendants in error state that the action was
brought under this section. There was a trial at which, by the
instructions to the jury, a recovery was allowed under the act for
the negligence in Washington, irrespective of the law prevailing
here. The jury found a verdict for $750, which was sustained by the
supreme court of the state. 92 S.C. 354. The plaintiff in error
saved its rights under the Constitution of the United States (so
plainly that it is not necessary to discuss the matter), and
brought the case here.
Whatever variations of opinion and practice there may
Page 234 U. S. 547
have been, it is established as the law of this Court that, when
a person recovers in one jurisdiction for a tort committed in
another, he does so on the ground of an obligation incurred at the
place of the tort that accompanies the person of the defendant
elsewhere, and that is not only the ground, but the measure of the
maximum recovery.
Slater v. Mexican Nat. R. Co.,
194 U. S. 120,
194 U. S. 126;
Cuba R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U. S. 473,
222 U. S.
478-480. (A limitation of liability may stand on
different grounds.
The Titanic, 233 U.
S. 718). The injustice of imposing a greater liability
than that created by the law governing the conduct of the parties
at the time of the act or omission complained of is obvious, and
when a state attempts in this manner to affect conduct outside its
jurisdiction, or the consequences of such conduct, and to infringe
upon the power of the United States, it must fail. The principle
would be illustrated by supposing a direct clash between the state
and federal statutes; but it is the same whenever the state
undertakes to go beyond its jurisdiction into territory where the
United States has exclusive control.
Western Union Telegraph
Co. v. Chiles, 214 U. S. 274;
see also Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Commercial Milling
Co., 218 U. S. 406,
218 U. S.
416.
What we have said is enough to dispose of the case. But the act
also is objectionable in its aspect of an attempt to regulate
commerce among the states. That is, as construed, it attempts to
determine the conduct required of the telegraph company in
transmitting a message from one state to another or to this
District by determining the consequences of not pursuing such
conduct, and in that way encounters
Western Union Telegraph Co.
v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, a
decision in no way qualified by
Western Union Telegraph Co. v.
Commercial Milling Co., 218 U. S. 406.
Judgment reversed.
